HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.

HL Deb 25 July 1930 vol 78 cc790-822

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I should like to say that I think we are agreed on all the main points of the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I hope that we are practically in agreement as between the noble Earl Lord Onslow, and myself. As to all the points on which we promised to give consideration we have done so, and I think we have come to a fair understanding.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 2:

Clearance orders.

(3)When a clearance order has become operative, the owner or owners of any building to which the order applies shall demolish that building before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the building is required by the order to be vacated or, if it is not vacated until after that date, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which it is vacated or, in either case, before the expiration of such longer period as in the circumstances the local authority may deem reasonable; and, if the building is not demolished before the expiration of that period, the local authority shall enter and demolish the building and sell the materials thereof.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "six weeks" and to insert "three months."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to bring the Bill on to a footing with the Scottish Bill. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said the other day that we were to have equal treatment in England, and hinted that we might have superior treatment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("three months").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the period of six weeks has always been found very convenient in the administration of this difficult subject in England and we hope that the noble Viscount will not press for three months, which would merely mean delay and expense.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Does the noble and learned Lord think that Scottish workers are slower than English workers?

LORD PARMOOR

In many respects our procedure is different from that in Scotland. There has never been any trouble here, and we want this measure to proceed with as little friction as possible, and as soon as possible.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

This is not a question of procedure, but of time.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL or HALSBURY, who had given Notice of Amendments in subsection (5), said: My Lords, I have had an oportunity of talking to the noble and learned Lord opposite and, with your Lordships' leave, I do not propose to move the Amendments that stand in my name.

LORD PARMOOR

I am much obliged.

Clause 3:

Purchase by local authority of land surrounded by or adjoining clearance area.

3. Where as respects any area declared by them to be a clearance area a local authority determine to purchase any land comprised in the area, they may purchase also any land which is surrounded by the clearance area and the acquisition of which is reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing a cleared area of convenient shape and dimensions, and any adjoining land the acquisition of which is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development of user of the cleared area.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the first "land," to insert "including any building thereon." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these words appear in the Scottish Bill. I do not know whether the law in Scotland is different from the law in England and makes these words unnecessary. If not, I propose that they should be inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 36, after ("land") insert ("including any building thereon").— (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY)

My Lords, these words are included in the Scottish Bill merely on account of the tenement system, and that is the reason for the difference. They are included because the same provision is found in Clause 12 of the Scottish Bill, and these words in Clause 3 bring that clause into line with Clause 12. The tenement system includes houses which are fit for habitation. That is why these words are not necessary in the English Bill.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I think the noble Lord has explained the point satisfactorily, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5:

Treatment of clearance area.

(2) Land sold or leased under this section shall be sold or leased at the best price or for the best rent that can reasonably he obtained having regard to any restriction or condition imposed, and any capital money received in respect of any transaction under this section shall be applied, with the sanction of the Minister, either in the repayment of debt or for any other purpose for which capital money may be properly applied.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I beg to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "with the sanction of the Minister."

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, leave out from ("applied") to ("either").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I have to make the same answer. We have carefully considered the noble Viscount's Amendments, and I am glad to say that there are one or two on which we can help him, but this is not one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be improvement area]:

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, an Amendment to this clause [to leave out "and also" in subsection (1) and to insert "or"] stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but the hour fixed for the general convenience of the House is entirely inconvenient to my noble friend and, since I agree with the whole of his Amendments, I will move them, with your Lordships' permission, on his behalf. The first Amendment, however, is one that I do not propose to proceed with.

Clause 8:

Treatment of improvement area.

(3) The by-laws to be made in pursuance of this section may include, amongst other provisions, provisions for all or any of the purposes mentioned in the said Section six of the principal Act, and may be made applicable to any house, whether let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family only.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "house", to insert "used or intended to be used for occupation by members of the working classes." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these words appear in the Scottish Bill. I suppose there is some reason for their being there, and so I think they ought to be put in here.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 41, after ("house") insert ("used or intended to be used for occupation by members of the working classes").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

The very limitation which these words would cover is already in Section 6 of the principal Act.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Do I understand that it is already covered?

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Then I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Provisions as to purchase of land]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: () Notwithstanding that a building is included in a compulsory purchase order the local authority may, with consent of the Minister, agree with the owner of the building that, instead of their purchasing the building, the owner shall demolish the building and use the land for a purpose approved by the authority, but no such agreement shall be entered into unless the authority and the Minister are satisfied that the use to which the land will he put will not prejudice the housing conditions in the clearance or improvement area.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this subsection appears in the equivalent clause of the Scottish Bill, and English properties are surely entitled to similar protection.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, we have gone very carefully into the matter, and we are satisfied that this Amendment is not necessary.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Will the noble and learned Lord say on what grounds it is necessary in the Scottish Bill?

LORD PARMOOR

On the ground that, taking the legislation as it stand's—after all we are dealing with one of a series of Acts of Parliament—this is not necessary. We do not want to reduplicate anything.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not yet understand why it is necessary in the Scottish Bill and not in this Bill.

LORD PARMOOR

Let me say again, I hope once for all, that the fact that a matter is in the Scottish Bill does not necessitate its introduction into this Bill. There are conditions which do not apply in England, and do apply in Scotland.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not wish to obstruct, and I withdraw the Amendment, but I am still befogged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12:

Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily.

12.—(1) Where land is purchased compulsorily by a local authority under this Part of this Act, the compensation payable in respect thereof shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) In the case of lands comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section forty-six of the principal Act subject, as regards the first mentioned of those subsections, to the modifications contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act.

(3) In the case of any other land, the compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "thereon", to insert "which are specified in the compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health". The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may discuss my various Amendments on this subject together? Their object is to place the English Bill on the same footing as the Scottish Bill. I shall probably be told that there is a provision in Clause 2 of this Bill which makes this unnecessary, because it requires the local authority to prepare a map and to omit from that map all the premises that are not injurious or dangerous to health, or unfit for human habitation—that is to say, the clearance area will be covered with a number of islands of sound property. I think that is most satisfactory, as far as it goes, but it seems to me that it might be simpler if we were to adopt the Scottish practice and to say that only those houses in a clearance area that are unfit for habitation and so forth, should be included.

I am open to conviction on this subject, and possibly there may be reasons of which I am not aware for adopting a different practice in England. I understand that there are other Amendments to this clause which perhaps go further than I have done. I do not say that I disagree with those Amendments. I think many of them are excellent, but my object in bringing this matter before your Lordships is simply to endeavour to bring the two Bills into correspondence. In the second of the two Amendments that I have put down, I have deleted certain references to Section 46 of the principal Act; and I also have an Amendment to the Third Schedule, which, with the necessary drafting alterations, makes the English Bill conform with the Scottish Bill.

The object of that is to deal with the reduction factor. Your Lordships know that the reduction factor in this matter has two provisions. The first is the application of the reduction factor as in Scotland only to specified premises, and the second is the question of land to be used for open spaces. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships on that second point, because the Leader of the House has an Amendment down, the same as mine, which deals with sites to be used for open spaces, and so we may leave that. All my proposal amounts to really is to adapt the proposals in the Scottish Bill to the English Bill. I have nothing further to say except to remark, as to the propose which I propose, that it is taken bodily out of the Scottish Bill, and if it is necessary for Scotland it seems desirable to place it in the English Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

Does the noble Earl move all his Amendments?

THE EARL or ONSLOW

If it is convenient, yes.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 22, after ("thereon") insert ("which are specified in the compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, as I have an Amendment to this clause to insert a proviso in subsection (2), perhaps it would be convenient if I made a few remarks on it. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, had an Amendment almost identical with one in the names of Lord Banbury and myself, the object of which was to do away with the reduction factor altogether; not only in the case where the property to be compulsorily acquired was to be used as an open space, but also where it was to be used for the rehousing of the working classes. I am sorry that he has now slightly given way by his present Amendments, which appear to me to be rather complicated, and asks only for the reduction factor to be abolished in the case of open spaces. If that is so, I hope your Lordships will accept my Amendment instead.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not think it is so. I think under my Amendments it would be abolished in all cases, unless the property was specified.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If that is the case then I will give way, but I should like to reserve my rights to take action later.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I should like to deal first with ale noble Earl's Amendments. I know that the noble Earl has great knowledge of these matters, and has had an opportunity of considering them. I think probably we shall not have much difficulty in agreeing upon what is the best method. I am quite at one with him in regard to the "open space" reduction. It has been pointed out that it might operate harshly upon the owners. It certainly has not in Scot- land, where they have a different system of arbitration, but to prevent any difficulty in the future I have put down an Amendment to the compensation clause which brings in what the noble Earl desires—namely, no reduction factor where the land is to be used for open spaces. So far we are agreed.

With regard to other cases, I think, there is no difference, so far as the conditions are similar, between the words in the Scottish Bill and the words in the English Bill; but, as your Lordships know, where you have a series of Acts, as in England, there is a great advantage in carrying through a system which is found to operate well. The only difference between the Scottish system and ours is that they have tenement buildings, with different floors not only occupied by separate persons but owned by separate persons, and that makes specification, if not necessary, a convenient method. As the noble Earl says, apart from that in England we have a system of specification. The owner has ample knowledge of what, is going on, and ample right to bring up his interest at the local inquiry, and to take what precautions are necessary under the Bill for his protection. Then as regards the other point, which is of some importance—namely, the proviso, I have no great objection to it if the noble Earl wishes it inserted, but I consider it to be unnecessary for this reason. The effect of the proviso is that after the passing of this Bill this subsection shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of the Bill which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. No one knows better than the noble Earl that that question will never arise in England.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Why in Scotland, then?

LORD PARMOOR

There are differences in Scotland as I have said. There the local government procedure is different from ours in many directions, but so far as we are concerned I would ask him, from his experience, whether it is imaginable or conceivable that in these circumstances the local authority in England, instead of insisting upon obedience to its by-laws, and instead of doing its duty, would allow the formation of a slum area to go on and thereby create a new compensation scheme, which does not exist at the time. I think, myself, that that is quite unthinkable, I am told that it is quite an unnecessary proviso, but the noble Earl has gone so far to meet us that if he desires the proviso to be inserted I will not oppose it, and it can go down to the otter House and be considered.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has explained a good deal to me in regard to the analogy between the two Bills, but he has not touched upon the point mentioned by Lord Bertie of Thame—namely, the question of the reduction factor in regard to houses which are not specified in Scotland. My Amendment is intended—I do not know whether it is successful—to provide that only those houses which are specified shall he subject to the reduction factor. Might I ask the noble arid learned Lord how houses which would be protected in Scotland would be dealt with under the English Act, to meet the point raised by Lord Bertie? If I have made a mistake, and not included the point in my Amendment, I must beg the noble Viscount's pardon, and I trust it will he dealt with in an Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

If I might also, with the indulgence of the House, answer what the noble Earl has said, I do not think that the point which the noble Earl has now raised arises on his Amendment. It will arise on Lord Bertie of name's Amendment. At the present time I say quite frankly that I do not appreciate the difficulty in England, or why this provision in Scotland is in any way necessary; but I wish the noble Earl would let that stand over until I hear it fully explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 23, leave out ("of subsections (1) and (2)").

Page 11, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("as regards the first mentioned of those subsections").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments negatived.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following proviso:— Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the ease of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of this Act which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD PARMOOR

I am not objecting to the proviso.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment after subsection (2), to insert:— Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the first day of July, 1919, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords this Amendment has the advantage of being simple. It was drafted very carefully by my friends and myself to meet the objection taken by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who objected that there might be profiteering in slum property after the Bill had been introduced. The reason why I have chosen the date July 1, 1919, is that I understand that that was the date when the Bill was introduced. The words "or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business" cover the case where a landlord goes to his tenant and says: "Buy or go." It is going to do away with the reduction factor in the case of both open spaces and the rehousing of the working classes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not want us to have any confusion. I think the present position is this, that Lord Onslow's Amendment stands. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, wants to insert his words. Consequently, the question I put is that Lord Onslow's proviso stand part of the Bill. If you say "Content" Lord Bertie will lose his Amendment.

LORD PARATOOR

We are content to accept Lord Onslow's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

What will be put now is this. The Question will be that Lord Onslow's proviso stand part of the Bill. If you are against that you will say "Not-Content," and that will be turned out.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am quite ready to withdraw the proviso. It really is of no importance. It complicates the Bill. I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Lord Onslow's proviso is withdrawn. Now we are going to put Lord Bertie's proviso.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, we have discussed this pretty often. As I understand, what the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, wants is this. He wants to amend the Bill so that if the owner were an owner before the 1919 Act he shall have, not the limited form of compensation, but a wider form of compensation—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Always provided that his house is in good condition, and that he has done nothing illegal with it. That is under Part II of the Third Schedule.

LORD PARMOOR

What I want to put is this. Supposing this is a house which ought to come in a slum area. Ought the owner to be better off because he has had the advantage of this slum property for a longer time?

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Certainly, if he has kept it in a sanitary and respectable condition.

LORD PARMOOR

That is really another question. If everything has been done which would take it out of the slum area principle well and good; the owner will get out of it. But why is the year 1919 introduced? It only means that the man has had the property which has been condemned as part of a slum area longer. If it is in proper repair I presume it would not be condemned; it would be preserved on the island principle.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

No. Tinder the words of Clause 1—"the narrowness or"—the noble and learned Lord knows what I mean.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am afraid I do not make myself clear. Whatever the provisions of Clause 1 are I do not want to go back to them. We are dealing with the provisions that have brought land and the buildings on it into a slum area. What I am saying is that the measure of compensation should not be altered in favour of the owner because he has held that slum property for a longer time. That is the whole question here. He ought not to be given a preferential position on that account. We are not dealing with the question of whether it is a building to be demolished or not. We have already dealt with that. But supposing it conies within that definition, why should anyone have a higher compensation because he has owned property of that kind for a longer time?

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM

My Lords, the reason of this Amendment is as follows. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster objected to an Amendment which was down in my name on the ground that certain people bought property knowing that the Act of 1919 was in force, in order that they might make profit under that Act. We have put down this Amendment providing that any person holding a house before 1919 should not be penalised, in order to meet the point raised by Lord Buckmaster. A person who held a house before 1919 was not aware of the Act that was coming into force, and therefore it could not be said that he bought this slum property in order to make a profit out of an Act which was not in force when he bought it.

Now, in addition to that, if noble lords will look at the Amendment, they will see that it is all made consequential upon Part II. of the Third Schedule. Part II. of the Third Schedule says this— If the arbitrator is satisfied with respect to any premises that the rental thereof was enhanced by reason of their being used for illegal purposes, or being so overcrowded as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of the inmates, the compensation shall, so far as it is based on rental, lie based on the rental which would have been obtainable if the premises were occupied for legal purposes and only by the number of persons whom the premises were, under all the circumstances of the case, fitted to accommodate without such overcrowding. If the arbitrator is satisfied that any premises are in a state of defective sanitation, or are not in reasonably good repair, the compensation shall be the estimated value of the premises if put into a sanitary condition, or reasonably good repair, less the estimated expense of putting them into such condition or repair. That is perfectly clear and our Amendment all hinges on that. So that the effect of it is that if I bought a property which was in good order before the Act of 1919 and kept it in good order, and had done nothing illegal, I should receive fair compensation for my property. But if I had done anything illegal, if I had exacted a harsh rent or overcrowded the property, or kept it in an insanitary condition or out of repair, I should only receive the site value. Can anything be fairer than that?

I may say that I have had the advantage of a short conversation with my noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master, and I understood from him that he was inclined to think that this Amendment met his point. I am glad to see that he is in his place. In those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord who leads the House will accept an Amendment which is very reasonable and is only designed to ensure that a person who has done nothing wrong shall not have his property taken away from him without reasonable compensation.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I also am extremely glad that I am here because I cannot help thinking that there has been some misunderstanding. Let me explain, to begin with, what was in my mind when I spoke on the Committee stage. It was this. If a man had acquired property before 1919—that is to, say, before he knew that there were these reduction principles which might be applied to the valuation of the property when it was included in a slum area, and the house was a house which, apart from its neighbourhood, was not a slum house, then there was no reason why his house should be made subject to the reduction of value. Be it so. I still think that there is no particular reason there. But when you look at this Amendment, it is a totally different thing. What the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, is true. As this Amendment stands, it would enable a person to get a profit out of slum property by reason of having held it for a long period of time.

That certainly was not my intention. Nor was it my intention that the suggestion should include a, place occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business; because it is perfectly clear that an owner might get into a perfectly ramshackle house and occupy it as a place of residence immediately before the clearing order was made. That comes within the meaning of this proviso. That was not my intention and it never was my intention. My intention was to secure, if it were possible, fair compensation to a man who had fairly bought his property before the introduction of the Act and had fairly held it after that date. I feel strongly that people who are few in number and apart from the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, powerless to exert influence, ought to be protected in these matters, and I am prepared to help in their protection to the extent that I have stated, but most certainly not beyond.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord and also the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, who is in charge of the Scottish Bill, whether I am right in thinking that in Scotland the reduction factor is only applied to those buildings

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 16:

Application to London.

16.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to the administrative County of London subject to the modifications contained in this section.

(2) Within the City of London the Common Council shall be the local authority for the purposes of this Par of this Act: Provided that, in the case of an improvement area, by-laws for securing the stability of buildings, or the prevention of or safety from fire, shall be made and enforced by the London County Council.

that are specified? The noble Lord nods his head, so I think I am right, that the unspecified building would not be subject to the reduction factor; but in England such buildings would be left out of the clearance area and, therefore, would not be subject to the reduction factor. Is that the explanation?

LORD PARMOOR

That is so.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Then the houses mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, would not come into the reduction factor in Engand because they would not be in the clearance area.

LORD PARMOOR

That is so. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said.

On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.
Linlithgow, M.	Morton, E.	Bayford, L.
Normanby, M.	Onslow, E.	Gushendun, L.
Salisbury, M.	Peel, E.	Dynevor, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Abingdon, E.		Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Albemarle, E.	Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Effingham, E.	Brentford, V.	Jessel, L.
Grey, E.	Falkland, V.	Lamington, L.
Halsbury, E.		Lawrence, L.
Howe, E.	Addington, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Alvingham, L.	Wharton, L.
Lucan, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]
Mar and Kellie, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor)	Buckmaster, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
		Thomson, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Marks, L.

(3) The London County Council shall, outside the City of London be the authority to declare any area to be an improvement area, to determine what steps shall be taken for the improvement of that area, to purchase any land which they deem it expedient to acquire for opening out the area, to carry out such demolition of buildings and such street works on that land as they deem necessary, to make any by-laws with respect to the area, and to enforce such of those by-laws as are by-laws for securing the stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire, but the council of the Metropolitan borough in which the area is situate, on being informed by the County Council as to the steps which the County Council have determined to be necessary for the improvement of the area, shall, subject as aforesaid, take those steps and shall thereafter serve and enforce any necessary notices requiring the execution of works on dwelling-houses in the area or the demolition of dwelling-houses or the closing of parts of buildings therein, and observe and enforce compliance with any by-laws made by the County Council with respect to the area, not being by-laws for securing the stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire:

Provided that in the case of an area containing ten or less than ten houses a Metropolitan borough council may declare that area to be an improvement area and shall be empowered to determine what steps shall be taken for the improvement of that area, to purchase any land which they deem it expedient, to acquire for opening out the area, to carry out such demolition of buildings and such street works on that land as they deem necessary, and to enforce any by-laws made by the London County Council with respect to that area, except those bylaws for securing stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire which shall be enforced by the London County Council:

Provided that, if it is represented to the Minister by the County Council that a borough council have made default in exercising or performing any powers or duties under this subsection, the Minister may by order transfer those powers and duties to the County Council, and any expenses incurred by the County Council in exercising or performing any powers or duties so transferred shall be a debt duo from the borough council to the County Council.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, at beginning of subsection (3), to insert "Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection." The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 14, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection").—(Lord Bitch-master.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved to omit the first proviso in subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 37, leave out from the beginning of line 37 to the end of line 6 on page 14.—(Lord Buckmaster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) Without prejudice to the powers of the London County Council under the last preceding subsection, the council of a Metropolitan borough shall as regards any area within that borough which does not contain more than ten dwelling-houses to be a local authority for the purposes of the provisions relating to improvement areas Provided that—

1. (i) where the borough council are about to take into consideration a proposal that any area shall be declared by them to be an improvement area, they shall give to the county council notice in writing of their intention and shall not declare that area to be an improvement area until two months have elapsed from the date of the service of that notice, or if before the expiration of that period the County Council notify the borough council that they intend themselves to deal with that area either as a clearance area or as pare of a clearance area or as part of an improvement area; and
2. (ii) the London County Council shall be the authority to make any by-laws with respect to the area and to enforce such of those by-laws as are by-laws for securing the stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire, but the borough council shall observe and enforce compliance with any by-laws made by the County Council with respect to the area, not being by-laws made for the purposes aforesaid."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for having mentioned this prematurely in connection with the other Amendments. My mistake was due to the fact that I had a copy of the first edition of these Amendments which no doubt will be valuable hereafter, but at present is wholly irrelevant. My Amendments were all under one head. This Amendment as it stands is put in to give effect to what your Lordships agreed to in Committee. It is to provide that where you have not more than ten houses the borough council instead of the County Council should be deemed the authority.

LORD PARMOOR

We accept this.

Loan BUCKMASTER

I understand this is merely putting into better form what your Lordships had agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I am very glad to think the Government have accepted this Amendment, and I understand from the London County Council that they quite agree to it. My only doubt was whether they had been consulted. I now hear that has been done, and, on behalf of the borough councils, we thank the Government for having accepted this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17:

Power of local authority to require repair of insanitary house.

17.—(1) Where a local authority, upon consideration of an official representation, or a report from any of their officers, or other information in their possession, are satisfied that any dwelling-house which is occupied or is of a type suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes is in any respect unfit for human habitation, they shall, unless they are satisfied that it is not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, serve upon such person as is hereinafter mentioned a notice requiring him, within such reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice, to execute the works specified in the notice and stating that, in the opinion of the authority, those works will render the house fit for human habitation.

(3) In addition to serving a notice under this section on the person having control or the house, the local authority may serve a copy of the notice on any other person having an interest in the house, whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee, or otherwise.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or is of a type suitable for occupation." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these words were not in the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Commons and they are not in the Scottish Bill. I therefore beg to move that they be deleted.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 11, leave out from ("occupied") to ("by") in line 12.—(Viscount Bettie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to omit from the clause houses which are not at the time actually occupied by persons of the working classes, though in other respects amenable to what I might call the slum doctrine. The Amendment would make the clause less comprehensive than the existing law, since Section 3 of the principal Act, which deals with repairs to houses, applies to any dwelling-house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes regardless of the question whether it is so occupied or not.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Is the noble Lord in charge of the Scottish Bill going to put these words into that Bill, and if not why not?

LORD PARMOOR

Because we prefer the words that have always been in the English Act, and prefer to retain them. It is a little wider no doubt than the other.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out sub-section (3). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this subsection is not contained in the Scottish Bill and I do not see why it should be put into this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, lines 32 to 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, we think, and the Ministry of Health think, that our law is satisfactory as it stands, and we do not want it altered in this respect. I dare say the Scottish law has been, as regards their conditions, equally satisfactory to them, and I do not propose for a moment to criticise it, but we prefer our own.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, as this is a small point I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18:

Enforcement of notice requiring execution of repairs.

(4) The local authority may by order declare any such expenses to be payable by weekly, monthly or annual instalments within a period not exceeding thirty years with interest at such rate as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, from time to time by order fix, from the date of the service of the demand until the whole amount is paid, and any such instalments and interest, or any part thereof, may be recovered summarily as a civil debt from any owner or occupier of the dwelling-house, and, if recovered from an occupier, may be deducted by him from the rent of the house.

(5) The amount of any expenses and interests thereon due to a local authority under this section shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred, and the local authority shall for the purpose of enforcing that charge have all the same powers and remedies under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and otherwise as if they were mortgagees by deed having powers of sale and lease, of accepting surrenders of leases and of appointing a receiver.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, after subsection (1), to insert:—

"(2) Where the local authority are about to enter upon a dwelling-house under the provisions of the last preceding subsection for the purpose of doing any work, they may give to the person having control of the house and, if they think fit, to any other person being an owner of the house, notice in writing of their intention so to do, and if at any time after the expiration of seven days from the service upon him of such notice and whilst any workman or contractor employed by the local authority is carrying out works in the house, any person upon whom the notice was served or any workman employed by him, or by any contractor employed by him, is in the house for the purpose of carrying out any works, the person upon whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be obstructing the local authority in the execution of this Act and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that there was urgent necessity to carry out the said works in order to obviate danger to occupants of the house."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I dare say the House will accept this. It is to provide that where works are being undertaken they shall not he obstructed by the owner preventing the work being carried out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD LAMJNGTON

I should like to know why such a short time limit as seven days is to be inserted. Surely that is too short a period, and it ought to be 21 days.

LORD BUCK MASTER

My Lords, if you will permit me to give the answer, the answer is this. The idea is that the work of the local authority, which is being undertaken by their workmen, is interfered with by other people, and you must act promptly and get rid of them at the earliest possible moment. Seven days I should think is an abundant time for that. That is the whole explanation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), after "monthly," to insert "quarterly". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be convenient if we put in the word "quarterly" here.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 2, after ("monthly") insert ("quarterly").—(Viscount Bernie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not know if the noble Viscount has seen what we propose in order to meet the point. We propose to leave out "monthly or annual" and to insert "or other". That gives the wider power of discretion which the noble Viscount desires. We are obliged to him for suggesting it and think that in this form it will have a wider application.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 2, leave out ("monthly or annual") and insert ("or other").—(Lord Pormoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no similar provision in Clause 15 in the Scottish Bill, which is the equivalent to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 18, lines 18 to 21, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is merely a provision as regards expenses which the local authority may obtain as against the owner. I do not quite know what the difference is in Scotland, but I think that is quite the right principle. It has long been in our legislation.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord says is correct. There is a difference between English and Scottish procedure and this clause might well be inserted in the English Bill. If it is not in the Scottish Bill it does not make any great difference to Scotland, I understand.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, after that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 [Power of local authorities to order demolition of insanitary house]:

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 23, after ("vacated") insert ("or in either case within such longer period as in the circumstances the local authority deem it reasonable to specify").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Power of local authority to make arrangements for provision of houses by public utility societies, &c.]:

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I do not propose to move Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment to this clause with reference to an appeal to the Minister. but I should like it to be made clear that the Minister will give the matter careful consideration.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am quite willing to make that statement. The Minister will be willing to do anything in his power to make such an arrangement.

Clause 31 [Application to London]:

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 21, after the second ("the") insert ("administrative").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Duty of county council in respect of housing conditions in rural districts]:

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 28, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("section").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 [Powers of county council and Minister in the event of default of rural district council]:

Amendments moved—

Page 34, line 41, after ("under") insert ("this or").

Page 35, line 13, after ("under") insert ("this or").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38:

Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c. 38. A local authority in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic or artistic interest, and shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Minister.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 9, leave out ("natural").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after "locality," to insert "the beauty of the landscape or countryside." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a somewhat similar Amendment during Committee stage and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, took objection, perhaps rightly, that I was moving it in the wrong place and that it was a little too strong. My noble friend Lord Brent-ford suggested the words might come in better in this clause, which will then read— shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality, the beauty of the landscape or countryside and the desirability of preserving exisiting works of architectural, historic or artistic interest. I want the local authorities, when dealing with these housing schemes, to pay attention to the preserving of the landscape and scenery. I am not going to repeat all the arguments I used during the Committee stage, but your Lordships will fully realise what I have in mind and what the intention is. I hope the Government will be able to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 10, after ("locality") insert ("the beauty of the landscape or countryside ").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the point is whether the word "amenities" is the widest possible term we can use to include everything. Our view is that the words proposed would not add to but would detract from it. The word "amenities" is a word which is used a good deal in this connection and we do not want any doubt upon the point.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment. As to "amenities," I wish I had the faintest comprehension of what "amenities" may be. It may perhaps be better to try to make it comprehensive by putting in "the beauty of the landscape or countryside." Perhaps some one will assist my bewildered brain by telling me what the word "amenities" means. Perhaps it is a word so obscure and elastic as to cover everything.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I share with my noble and learned friend his want of knowledge of the meaning of the word "amenity." I do not know if any member of your Lordships' House can give a definition of it. Perhaps it would be better to add these words. There is no disagreement as to the desirability of putting them in. It will be clearer and we might also get some definition of "amenity" which will be useful.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not want a mistake made about this. We all agree upon it. The word "amenity" as used in the Town Planning Acts is a common term. It comes from the Latin word anœnus. I have no objection to the words quoted, but I believe they are included and that it is better to leave the clause in its present form without further definition. If noble Lords generally think the words should be included I would not raise objection. I think, however, it is cutting down what is as wide a term as possible.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the matter which troubles us is that we do not really know the value of the word "amenity." The noble and learned Lord assures us it includes everything, but we are faced with the fact that one of the greatest lawyers in your Lordships' House is unaware of the meaning of the word. Surely, therefore, we cannot be content with that word? If we are in earnest in trying to protect the beauties of the countryside, we had better put in the words proposed. Of course, if the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, is advised by lawyers who have devoted their minds to this subject, that they are really satisfied with the word "amenity," we may perhaps think better of it on Third Reading. But, as at present advised, the best plan is to put the words in.

LORD MARLEY

The point is that the word "amenity" is used in the Town Planning Acts. If we now add these words, it may suggest that the use of the word in the Town Planning Acts will not include them. It. must be remembered that this Bill applies almost exclusively to thickly populated areas where there are not these beauty places. It would be a pity to put the words in here while excluding them from the Town Planning Acts, which are for rural areas.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

In answer to that, may I say that I understand the Government are going to bring in a Town Planning Bill? Therefore they could bring that into line with this Bill.

LORD MARLEY

I am talking of existing Acts.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

But in the new Bill you could bring it into line with this Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50:

Amendment of s. 64 of principal Act. (2) The proviso to Section sixty-four of the principal Act have effect as if the words "forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or" and the word "otherwise" were omitted therefrom.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "if," to insert "for," and to leave out "and the word 'otherwise' were emitted therefrom" and to insert "'is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words 'is required for the amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or otherwise'." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I called attention in Committee to the danger of this subsection as it is drafted, and I thought I could come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord. I thought we were in agreement as to the idea I put forward and that it was only a question of wording. I am afraid I am unable to agree with the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned. Lord, but as it is only a question of wording, might I suggest to him that I should withdraw my Amendment and that he should not move his Amendment to-day? Then we could talk the matter over before Third Reading to see whether we could agree upon some Amendment.

Loan PARMOOR

I am quite willing to accept that suggestion. I desire agreement in all these matters if possible. I am sure we are of one opinion and I do not think we need argue now about matters of drafting.

Clause 51 [Provisions with respect to official representations]:

Loan PARMOOR

My Lords, the Amendment I have put down to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 26, after ("of") insert ("this or").—(Lord Parmoor).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Power of Minister to enforce exercise of powers by local authorities other than rural district councils]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there are throe drafting Amendments that I move to this clause.

Amendments moved— Page 45, line 38, after ("under") insert ("this or") lines 38 and 39, leave out ("or under this Act"). Page 46, line 24, after ("under") insert ("this or").—(Lord Parmoor).

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 53 [Provisions as to orders directing county council to perform obligations of urban district councils]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 31, at end insert ("this or").—(Lord Parmoor).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Power of Minister to withhold contributions in event of default]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I move a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 12, after ("this") insert ("or the principal").—(Lord Parmoor).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59:

Recovery of possession of houses and buildings for purposes of Housing Acts.

59.—(1) Section one hundred and twenty-eight of the principal Act (which excludes in certain cases the application of the increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920) is hereby repealed and in substitution therefor the following provisions of this subsection shall have effect, that is to say:—

Nothing in the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925, shall be deemed to affect the provisions of this Act relating to the obtaining possession of a house with respect to which a clearance order or demolition order has been made, or to prevent possession being obtained of any house possession of which is required for the purpose of enabling a local authority to exercise their powers under any enactment relating to the housing of the working classes, or for the purpose of securing compliance with any by-laws made for the prevention of overcrowding.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert, "Provided that the local authority satisfy the court that accommodation is available for the person displaced". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this point was fully discussed in Committee and in another place. The present Amendment is not quite in the same form of words. The Minister in charge promised to redraft the clause on Report. The hon. gentleman who moved the Amendment I understand is not quite satisfied. My suggestion is to declare the intention that poor people should not be turned out until another place is built for them. If this Amendment is not accepted, I think the Title of the Bill should be altered to "Housing and Dis-housing Bill".

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

I think the whole principle of the Bill is that displacement and replacement ought to go on side by side, and I should have thought that the Bill as it stands is sufficiently strong.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble and learned Lord would accept this Amendment it would make it clear.

LORD PARMOOR

We may differ about a question of drafting very often Multiplicity of words does not always lead to clearness. I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60:

Definition of "agricultural parish" for purposes of housing subsidies.

60.—(1) For the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, so far as regards any house for the provision of which a proposal is approved by the Minister after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for the purposes of Part III of this Act, a house shall be deemed to be situated in an agricultural parish if—

1. (a) the net annual value of the agricultural land in the parish in which the house is situated as appearing in the valuation list in force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine exceeded twenty-five per cent. of the total net annual value of that parish as appearing in the said list; and
817
2. (b) the population of the parish, according to the latest census return of the Registrar-General published before the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Minister or, as the case may he, in which persons are displaced from the house, is less than fifty persons per hundred acres.

LORD BAYFORD moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "and" and insert "or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect a the Bill as it stands is that in order to qualify as an agricultural parish a parish must fulfil two conditions. The object of this Amendment is to provide that instead of a parish having to fulfil both those conditions, it should only be necessary for the parish to fulfil one or other in order to qualify as agricultural. There are some cases with regard to the percentage of agricultural land where by reason of there being one or two large houses or a railway line in the area, a parish would fail to qualify under the subsection as it stands in the Bill. The object of this Amendment is that if the parish fails to comply under one paragraph, it should be able to qualify under the other. When the Bill was in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord President was good enough to express at all events a certain amount of benevolence towards this Amendment, and I am not without hope that he may be able now to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Bayford.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is the same question as we discussed before, whether you should have two conditions or only one. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the noble Lord whose name is also on the paper as proposing this Amendment (Lord Clinton), and I thought he was satisfied not to be here and not to press it. I do not think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will press the Amendment. I can assure him there is very strong feeling in agricultural parishes on this subject. I have been asked by the County Councils Association to press for this, because they say there are many parishes which would otherwise be left out and great hardship would result. I hope the noble Lord will press this as it is an important Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I think this is important because, as the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has said, under the clause as it stands a certain number of agricultural parishes might be excluded, as ii, were, by accident. I hope the noble Lord will press the Amendment, and I hope the noble and learned Lord opposite will give some explanation as to how the necessities of these parishes would he met if they were excluded by the accident of there being a large house or a railway or a factory included in the parish. We know that many parishes are very straggling and a parish might be almost urban in one corner. I think, therefore, we might at any rate ask the noble and learned Lord for some clear explanation as to how that difficulty would be met.

LORD PARMOOR

I shall not oppose the Amendment, hut the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, will understand that in another place a different view may be taken.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

I have a drafting Amendment to move to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 20, leave out ("Act, 1925") and insert ("Acts, 1925 to 1929").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62

Interpretation.

62.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— The expression "disrepair" includes deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to tile wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house and is net likely to injure or endanger their health; and The expression "sanitary defects" includes lack of air space or of ventilation, darkness, dampness, absence of adequate and readily accessible water supply or sanitary accommodation or of other conveniences and inadequate paving or drainage of courts, yards or passages.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to move to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 39, after ("this") insert ("or the principal").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of disrepair, after "deficiency," to insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make certain that an owner of property is not to be liable for decorations in cases where it is customary for the tenant to be responsible for them. Your Lordships will realise that if the onus is Shifted on to the shoulders of the landlord it will be unfair to him because he will be precluded under the Rent Restrictions Acts from getting any increase of rent. Where a tenant is liable for repairs that is taken into account in fixing the rent.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 6, after ("deficiency") insert ("arising from default on the part of the landlord").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I think this would be a limiting Amendment. As the clause stands at present the expression "disrepair" includes deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal repairs. The objection to the Amendment really is that if the words "default on the part of the landlord" are to be construed as a breach by the landlord of contractual obligations entered into with the tenant, the definition would be unduly limited. I think the Bill is better without these words.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, is it quite clear that without this Amendment no new liability will be put on the landlord? Will the landlord have to undertake painting and papering for which at the present time he is not liable? That is the point raised by my noble friend. If he is correct in thinking that there will be this increased liability, then I think this Amendment should be accepted.

LORD PARMOOR

May I ask if the noble Earl thinks these words need be added? I should have thought not.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am disposed to think some words of the kind ought to be put in. Might I suggest that they might be put in now and possibly revised on Third Reading?

LORD PARMOOR

I do not object to that, on the understanding that we have to review the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in the definition of "disrepair," to leave out "and is not likely to injure or endanger their health." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an interpretation paragraph, which enacts that the word "disrepair" includes deficiency in respect of painting, papering or distempering of walls— except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house. My Amendment is to leave those words as they are, but there follow the words which I wish to leave out. The effect of those words, if they remain, is to do away with the whole of the previous paragraph. What would happen? A tenant, owing to wilful neglect, does not keep in order the internal painting, papering or distempering of walls, and the landlord says that this has not been done owing to wilful neglect. The tenant replies: "That is quite true, but the effect of my wilful neglect is that I and my family are in danger of our lives if we live in the house, and accordingly you must do something which I ought to have done." The effect of the words is to make the previous paragraph utterly useless. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, will accept this Amendment. Surely he does not want to have words in the Bill which really mean nothing? The effect of the words would be to leave it entirely to the power of a tenant, who wilfully neglects something which he ought to do, to compel the landlord to put right that wilful neglect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 10, leave out from ("house") to ("and") in line 11.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. If, in fact, the neglect of the tenant has been carried on over such a long period of years that the house has become dangerous and injurious to health, surely the landlord must bear some responsibility for having so badly minded his property that he has not kept an eye on the tenant? After all, the question of property management does come in here, and when the property has come to such a state that it is injurious to health, perhaps on account of the ignorance of the tenant, you must be able to compel repairs to the house. I trust your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I must say that the explanation given by the noble Lord somewhat surprises me. He spoke of neglect over a large number of years. Supposing it happened that a tenant, perhaps under the influence of good cheer, were to do a little destruction in his house and smash a window, and were then to say that the broken window gave him a cold. He might then claim that the house was injurious to health, and charge the landlord for the repair. It seems to me that this will be quite possible under the clause, though I do not see how the unfortunate landlord could possibly be held responsible. I do not know whether any other words could be substituted to meet my noble friend behind me, but I suggest, since we are leaving certain portions of the Bill undecided until Third Reading, that we might leave this over and see if we cannot re-draft the clause with a more precise meaning and a, more satisfactory effect than it has at present. I venture to suggest that course to your Lordships.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I have no objection to that suggestion. We are very anxious that this Bill should operate fairly. If these words are omitted now it must be clearly understood that the matter will have to be reconsidered between now and Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule [Clearance Orders]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new paragraph:— 6. Before confirming the order the Minister shall send to the local authority and to every person who having given notice to the Minister of his objection to the order, appeared at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, a copy of the order as proposed to be confirmed, with an intimation that any representations in writing with respect thereto may be made to the Minister within fourteen days after the date on which a copy has been sent, and before confirming the order the Minister shall consider any representations received.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Scottish Bill, as introduced in another place, did not contain this paragraph. As told your Lordships in Committee, it was inserted on the Motion of Mr. Adamson. I can only repeat what I said then—namely, that what is good for Scotland should be given to England.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 8, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am afraid I can only answer that, if we get the terms that we want for England—and this is founded on English practice—I do not think we ought to alter them merely because, under the different conditions of local life and local government in Scotland, they have some other system.

On Question, Amendment negatived.